sch_validate_netlist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only diagnostic' and 'No EasyEDA write is performed', disclosing the non-destructive nature. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but is transparent about behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and reports. Every sentence adds value: first explains what it does, second explains when and that it is read-only. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple diagnostic tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, reports, and usage context. It could mention the return format or more details on output, but given low complexity, it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'allSchematicPages' described as 'If true, validate across all pages, not just current'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'validate' and the resource 'schematic connectivity'. It lists specific reports (floating pins, single-pin nets, per-net summary) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is a read-only diagnostic complementing the place->wire->verify loop.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context by stating it 'complements the place -> wire -> verify loop', indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a specialist tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.